UncleKG wrote:And again I ask, what if you're wrong on the subject? It's like being in a boat on an unfamiliar body of water. Many say, "evidence indicates there's a waterfall ahead." Others say, "No, I don't believe that." You keep going back and forth on it and (let's just say) you suddenly realize there is a waterfall and you're too close to it and the current is too strong to turn back.

What happens if we cut back on greenhouse emissions and other factors that may contribute to global warming? Cleaner air and water for future generations. Man, how terrible.

As I said before I believe mankind will destroy themselves by some other means then "effecting climate change" if the claim is true. I believe there are enough credible scientists that question man's impact on the climate. To clarify, I'm not stating that changes aren't occurring. I question the claims of our impact on it. If your going to invest in things that are supposed to help with it you need to do it wisely. All I've seen from the former administration is investment of taxpayer dollars into "green energy" companies that have failed.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Fact Finder wrote:Welcome back Monker, any thoughts on the idea of setting someone on fire for supporting Trump? I'm thinking this gal needs a beating, and possibly Weight Watchers..watch the whole video to see her caught in the act...

So now being "violent" includes complaining and having a harsh exchange of words with someone? That it's on par with mobs in the streets setting fires, physically assaulting people, throwing rocks through windows and at people including law enforcement? That is on par with making a public threat to "bomb the White House". Oh, and lets not forget the Democratic activist groups getting caught on camera admitting that they paid people to start physical fights and other violent acts at Trump's rallies. Give me a break.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Monker wrote:Trump got elected because voter turnout was so low. He did not bring in millions of new voters to the Republican party. Fewer people voted for him than Romney or McCain. And, fewer people voted for Clinton than Obama. If all of these people protesting had actually VOTED, Trump would have lost.

The second part in bold is correct, the first is not.

Trump won...because Hillary lost states she needed. She didn't return to campaign in MI and other states that could have ensured her victory. Those votes instead went to Johnson or Stein. Wasted votes.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of someone disrespecting the previous first lady without pointing out the present one is the only one in history to have nude photos of herself readily available on the world wide web.

Oh, and name-calling on top of that. All class...

Last edited by UncleKG on Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

Boomchild wrote: So now being "violent" includes complaining and having a harsh exchange of words with someone? That it's on par with mobs in the streets setting fires, physically assaulting people, throwing rocks through windows and at people including law enforcement? That is on par with making a public threat to "bomb the White House". Oh, and lets not forget the Democratic activist groups getting caught on camera admitting that they paid people to start physical fights and other violent acts at Trump's rallies. Give me a break.

Throwing a cup of coffee isn't being violent? "Mobs?" Methinks you're overreacting. Certainly there were some jacklegs being stupid at the protests, but no more so than some sports fans when their team loses (or wins, for that matter).

Finally, I believe a conservative group just got caught trying to hire progressives to protest Herr Drump's inauguration, so perhaps it's you who should give the rest of us a break.

Boomchild wrote:"If you like your Doctor you can keep you doctor." - Barack Obama Didn't "save" that."If you like your plan you can keep your plan" - Barack Obama Didn't "save" that."It will save the average American household $2500 a year in their premiums." - Barack Obama It didn't "save" them anything but has done the complete opposite.

But the net effect is that it has reduced healthcare spending, regardless of how you cut it. That's a bad thing, apparently. Did it need a lot of tweaking? Yep. Is it dumb to throw the baby out with the bath water? Yep.

How does one "undo the damage" of a deal that was never ratified to begin with?

This was pure "political theater," as the agreement was never going to be passed anyway, but Drump the huckster will never miss an opportunity to try and make it look like he's accomplishing something. Too many people on both sides of the aisle were against it, including *gasp* Bernie supporters.

UncleKG wrote:Throwing a cup of coffee isn't being violent? "Mobs?" Methinks you're overreacting. Certainly there were some jacklegs being stupid at the protests, but no more so than some sports fans when their team loses (or wins, for that matter).

Finally, I believe a conservative group just got caught trying to hire progressives to protest Herr Drump's inauguration, so perhaps it's you who should give the rest of us a break.

I watched the video I did not see the person throwing anything. Yes, I said mobs because that is what they have become. To equate this event with what the protestors turned rioters have been doing across this country is absurd. As far as the comparison to sports fans, they aren't committing the violence in the name of peace and tolerance for everything and everyone. As far as a "conservative group" looking to hire people to protest Trump doesn't mean that they were hiring them to commit the violent acts we have seen. Unlike the Democratic activist groups that were caught on camera admitting to it. Get back to me when you can show me Trump supporters throwing rocks, damaging property, calling for the assassination of a POTUS, threatening to bomb the White House, setting fires to trash cans and cars on the scale that we have seen these people doing.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

UncleKG wrote:But the net effect is that it has reduced healthcare spending, regardless of how you cut it. That's a bad thing, apparently. Did it need a lot of tweaking? Yep. Is it dumb to throw the baby out with the bath water? Yep.

But, But, But. That doesn't change the fact the former President directly and boldly lied to the American people and the legislature to get it passed. Whether replacing it is the right or wrong move is speculative because it hinges on what the replacement will be, It just may be a better solution. To say that there is only one solution is being narrow minded.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

UncleKG wrote:But the net effect is that it has reduced healthcare spending, regardless of how you cut it. That's a bad thing, apparently. Did it need a lot of tweaking? Yep. Is it dumb to throw the baby out with the bath water? Yep.

But, But, But. That doesn't change the fact the former President directly and boldly lied to the American people and the legislature to get it passed. Whether replacing it is the right or wrong move is speculative because it hinges on what the replacement will be, It just may be a better solution. To say that there is only one solution is being narrow minded.

So, the president lying offends you? If so, prepare to be offended on an hourly basis for however long it takes Drump to get himself impeached. Yeah, it may be a better solution. On the other hand, if this system could be improved and studies show it has reduced healthcare spending, isn't it reasonable to suggest you try and improve the existing system instead of starting from scratch?

Comparing apples to rutabagas. The three you named are A. print publications, B. have been in business for decades, and C. are recognized worldwide as news leaders. Yours is recognized as being clown shoes.

"See, I don't believe a recognized world news leader is a reliable source because Drump told me not to!" They've won 117 Pulitzer Prizes and three Peabody Awards. Your argument about them not being a legitimate news source is invalid.

Last edited by UncleKG on Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Boomchild wrote:Get back to me when you can show me Trump supporters throwing rocks, damaging property, calling for the assassination of a POTUS, threatening to bomb the White House, setting fires to trash cans and cars on the scale that we have seen these people doing.

Read the comments section on any Fox News story about Obama and you'll likely read much worse than calls for assassination and threatening to bomb the white house. Don't suggest a few idiots represent all (or even most) protesters any more than someone should suggest all Drump supporters are white supremacists who commit hate crimes against minorities.

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:The shoe fit. I'll stick to my assessment of you. Besides, who would want to see nude photo's of Obama? Do you need a puppy to pet now?

No, I need someone to teach you when you're (or your, as you would say) supposed to use apostrophes. The fact that Mrs. Drump dropped trou for $$$ says all I need to know about her. I'm sure she married Drump for love, though. I mean, who can resist that orange glow, and he always comes off as such a pleasant, caring man, right? "It's all about the Benjamins."

In every bit of video footage I see of her, I swear she's blinking out an "S-O-S" signal.

UncleKG wrote:So, the president lying offends you? If so, prepare to be offended on an hourly basis for however long it takes Drump to get himself impeached. Yeah, it may be a better solution. On the other hand, if this system could be improved and studies show it has reduced healthcare spending, isn't it reasonable to suggest you try and improve the existing system instead of starting from scratch?

Don't try and shift Obama's actions onto another. Also stick to the subject which is the ACA. I as well as many others believe that the ACA is plagued with problems that will cause it to collapse under it's own weight. Even though it may seem that there are benefits in the short term. It's clear that many do not want to be forced to buy a product. Many consider the government forcing you to do so under threat of legal action is unconstitutional. It's obvious by now that many of the leading insurance companies do not wish to participate in the program. Which leaves people in some states with only one option for healthcare insurance. As far as it stands now Trump is suggesting solutions that I can get on board with. Such as keeping the restriction on insurance companies from dropping or not offering plans for people with existing conditions. Changing the system so that insurance companies can sell plans across state lines. When Republicans started saying that they were going to repeal the ACA and introduce it's replacement at a latter point, Trump told them he wouldn't accept that approach and that they have to be done at the same time. Your response to the suggestion of a different approach shows me that you are close minded to any other option then to keep the ACA in place. So I see no benefit in continuing a discussion beyond this response.

Last edited by Boomchild on Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Boomchild wrote:Get back to me when you can show me Trump supporters throwing rocks, damaging property, calling for the assassination of a POTUS, threatening to bomb the White House, setting fires to trash cans and cars on the scale that we have seen these people doing.

Read the comments section on any Fox News story about Obama and you'll likely read much worse than calls for assassination and threatening to bomb the white house. Don't suggest a few idiots represent all (or even most) protesters any more than someone should suggest all Drump supporters are white supremacists who commit hate crimes against minorities.

If you want to use online comments in a Fox news story as a defense, then post examples with your claim. Besides, comments by faceless people online is not in the same league as causing physical and property damage which is the main issue. All you are trying to do is down play these actions. This has transitioned from isolated to occurring at a good portion of the demonstrations. To make matters worse the people involved with setting up these demonstrations as well as Democratic leaders have remained silent about these events. You would think in order to protect the integrity of their message and movement they would come out in spades and condemn these actions. So based on their lack of doing so it seems to me that they don't have a problem with it. Which doesn't surprise me with the likes of Soros providing funding to make these events happen.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

So it was mentioned at the White House Press Conference that they are going to allow media outlets to participate via Skype so that more can participate from around the globe. Let's hope that this will include some alternative media outlets instead of the lame stream media ones.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Boomchild wrote:Your response to the suggestion of a different approach shows me that you are close minded to any other option then to keep the ACA in place. So I see no benefit in continuing a discussion beyond this response.

Then it is you who are close-minded. I said the system needs major tweaking, but it's already shown to be beneficial (20+ additional Americans now have coverage, reduced healthcare spending, and I personally know several people who would be dead were it not for ACA). I suggested it makes more sense to tweak an existing system than to try to create another from whole cloth, which would be far more cumbersome to implement.

Boomchild wrote:So it was mentioned at the White House Press Conference that they are going to allow media outlets to participate via Skype so that more can participate from around the globe. Let's hope that this will include some alternative media outlets instead of the lame stream media ones.

"Alternative?" For example? Of course, you mean both "alternative" progressive as well as conservative outlets, right?

You missed an opportunity. Since you already used "lame stream," if you'd just have added "libtard" or "snowflake" to your post, you'd have gotten a triple word score. Better luck next time.

Last edited by UncleKG on Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Comparing apples to rutabagas. The three you named are A. print publications, B. have been in business for decades, and C. are recognized worldwide as news leaders. Yours is recognized as being clown shoes.

D. still bias and dishonest with slanted views.

"Herr Drump told me they were not good news sources, regardless of what the majority of the U.S. and the world thinks about them."

Tell you what. When international news organizations start recognizing the sources you cite as legitimate news sources, get back to me. The ones I share are most certainly seen as such.

Boomchild wrote: It's obvious by now that many of the leading insurance companies do not wish to participate in the program. Which leaves people in some states with only one option for healthcare insurance. As far as it stands now Trump is suggesting solutions that I can get on board with. Such as keeping the restriction on insurance companies from dropping or not offering plans for people with existing conditions.

You mean like Aetna pulling out because their merger got denied? Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini wrote a letter to the Justice Department, saying, “It is very likely that we would need to leave the public exchange business entirely and plan for additional business efficiencies should our deal ultimately be blocked.” In other words, essentially a strong arm tactic.

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:None of them would stupid. You don't understand much. do you? Go pet your puppy and calm down, and thatnks for being stupid enough to make my point and not even know it. What a dumb ass.

Actually, the NYT, Vanity Fair and USA Today get cited all the time. If you paid attention to something other than O'Reilly, Hannity and Alex Jones, you'd know this. Still with the name-calling in place of a coherent or intelligent comeback?

Actually, I understand quite a bit. For example, I understand how to use punctuation. You? Not so much.

I don't need a puppy. I'm verbally whipping you like a yard dog on a daily basis.